Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 18, 2018
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00860-CV
1983 GMC SIERRA, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE BN98476, VIN # 1GTDC14HDS516823,
AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-17-00861-CV
THREE THOUSAND SIXTY SIX DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($3066.00) IN US
CURRENCY AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-17-00862-CV
2003 MERCEDES S5M, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE HPJ5319, VIN#
WDBNG84J73A326961, AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-17-00863-CV
2006 CADILLAC DTS, TEXAS LICENSE PLATE BJX0195, VIN#
1G6KD57Y06U118902, AND DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District Court
Kaufman County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 96686-422; 96687-422; 96688-422; & 96689-422
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang-Miers
Opinion by Justice Francis
In these civil forfeiture cases, Darron Lashawn Collier appeals the trial court’s summary
judgments ordering three vehicles (a 1983 GMC Sierra, a 2003 Mercedes S5M, and a 2006
Cadillac DTS) and $3,066 in currency forfeited to the State of Texas. Appellant, representing
himself, filed his brief on January 9, 2018. By order dated January 26, 2018, we informed appellant
his brief was deficient because, among other things, it did not contain (1) a table of contents
indicating the subject matter of each issue or point; (2) a concise statement of the case, the course
of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case supported by record references; (3) a
concise statement of facts supported by record references; and (4) an argument with appropriate
citations to the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(b), (d), (g), (h), (i). We ordered appellant to file
an amended brief correcting the noted deficiencies and cautioned him that failure to comply may
result in these appeals being dismissed without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1);
42.3(b), (c). Appellant filed an amended brief, but it is also deficient.
Although individuals have the right to represent themselves as pro se litigants in civil cases,
they are required to follow the same rules of appellate procedure that licensed attorneys are
required to follow. See Bolling v. Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 315 S.W.3d 893, 895 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.). Appellate court judges are not responsible for “identifying possible
trial court error” or favorable facts or law to support parties’ contentions. Id. Importantly, under
rule 38.1(f), the court “must be able to discern what question[s] of law [it] will be
answering.” Id. at 896. A brief fails if it does not articulate the issues to be answered by the
court. Id. If a brief articulates the issues to be decided by the court, “then rule 38.1(i) calls for the
brief to guide [the court] through the appellant’s argument with clear and understandable
statements of the contentions being made.” Id. Under rule 38.1(i), appellant’s argument must
–2–
make direct references to facts in the record and applicable legal authority. Id. A brief fails under
rule 38.1(i) if the court must speculate or guess as to the contentions being made or if record
references are not provided. Id.
Appellant’s brief fails because, among other things, it requires us to speculate or guess as
to the contentions being made. Appellant seems to contend his Fourth Amendment rights were
violated when the officers executing a search warrant at his residence left the search warrant in his
home instead of handing it to him personally. His argument, however, is four sentences long and
does not contain any direct references to the facts in the record or otherwise mention the summary
judgment nor does it contain any conclusion regarding the nature of the relief he seeks. While he
cites two cases for the general proposition that police must, when practicable, obtain “advance
judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure” and the failure to do so
can only be excused by exigent circumstances, he does not analyze how this law is relevant to the
particular facts of this case. Without adequate briefing, appellant’s claim is nothing more than a
personal opinion. See Bolling, 315 S.W.3d at 897.
Appellant has failed to comply with the briefing requirements of our appellate rules after
having been given an opportunity to do so. Accordingly, we dismiss these appeals. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
170860F.P05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
1983 GMC SIERRA, TEXAS LICENSE On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District
PLATE BN98476, Court, Kaufman County, Texas
VIN # 1GTDC14H2DS516823, and Trial Court Cause No. 96686-422.
DARRON LASHAWN COLLIER, Opinion delivered by Justice Francis;
Appellants Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers
participating.
No. 05-17-00860-CV V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered September 18, 2018.
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
THREE THOUSAND SIXTY SIX On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District
DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($3066.00) IN Court, Kaufman County, Texas
US CURRENCY and DARRON Trial Court Cause No. 96687-422.
LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants Opinion delivered by Justice Francis;
Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers
No. 05-17-00861-CV V. participating.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered September 18, 2018.
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
2003 MERCEDES S5M, TEXAS On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District
LICENSE PLATE HPJ5319, VIN # Court, Kaufman County, Texas
WDBNG84J73A326961 and DARRON Trial Court Cause No. 96688-422.
LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants Opinion delivered by Justice Francis;
Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers
No. 05-17-00862-CV V. participating.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered September 18, 2018.
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
2006 CADILLAC DTS, TEXAS LICENSE On Appeal from the 422nd Judicial District
PLATE BJX0195, VIN # Court, Kaufman County, Texas
1G6KD57Y06U118902 and DARRON Trial Court Cause No. 96689-422.
LASHAWN COLLIER, Appellants Opinion delivered by Justice Francis;
Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers
No. 05-17-00863-CV V. participating.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.
Judgment entered September 18, 2018.
–7–